Cisco Wireless Reviews

The primary use is for wireless connectivity.

The most valuable feature is the coverage. Also, the management provides the most important security features in these devices.

The GUI could be made more user-friendly. There should also be a dashboard where it can showcase how many end-users are connected to a particular access point.

We have not run into any issues related to stability.

Technical support has been very good.

We feel that it's complex in terms of manageability. You require a skilled person to handle it.

The ROI is good because the stability is so good from Cisco.

I feel the product's pricing is a good value.

We did not evaluate anything else because Cisco is a brand name for networking devices.

When implementing this solution, you require the right partner to be in place to support it, that is the first requirement.

I would rate this solution at nine out of 10. The best part of the solution is the stability. Also, the easy usage of the switches They are automatically switched on and get their configuration. I don't need any technical person to look at it.

I have deployed it in a factory. I have a lot of people who come to visit from all over the globe. People come from Southeast Asia, from Europe, from South America, from the US, etc. We need to have a common platform wherein people who visit are able to log in to the corporate network. They do not need to do a guest login, they can just log in as they usually do. That's the primary use.

Since we have a central server from which our authentication is run, a user who comes from, let's say, California, doesn't have to ask any for credentials. He just comes to my network, logs in with his own username and password, and he gets access to his database. Authentication has played a big role for us, and it has given us mobility.

My IT staff no longer has to look after catering to clients who come from overseas. My staff members are busy doing their own work, and that overseas client or any other person is able to do his work without intervention from IT. This authentication scenario has saved us a lot of problems. Earlier, we had to create a guest user, give him a VPN, ensure that he logged in to his own network, and that he got access to his data. We don't have to do that now.

Authentication is the important feature for us.

There are certain features which I would want which are not there. There is always a wish list, that my WiFi should give me one, two, three, four, five. Certain things come, certain things don't, and certain things come at a cost. It fulfills about 75-80 percent of what I'm looking for. Things on my wish list are available at an additional cost but I can live without those thing, so I'm fine with it. 

It has been a fairly stable network, I have not had many problems with it. We had to upgrade the iOS once or twice, but that's about it. After that, we have not really had a problem.

We had to upgrade our access points. It's had been about six or seven years that those had been in. Scalability-wise, some of the old iOS is not supported on the new controller, but that's fine. We accepted that and we now have two products. We now have a 3800 deployed.

We have had a decent experience so far with Cisco technical support. We've not had any issues, so I would say the support has been good.

Before this solution we did not have any wireless solution, we had a stand-alone wireless. My global team wanted Cisco, so we went with Cisco. But, in a couple of other places, we've used Aruba and we're quite satisfied with it as well.

But it's something like when you prefer a certain flavor of coffee. It's not that you don't like the other coffee, but you like coffee A better than coffee B. It's just the comfort level or maybe you feel better with a certain product. So there's nothing wrong with the product that I'm currently using. I'm using Cisco and I'm quite satisfied with it. Otherwise, given a choice, given the funds, if someone were to say, “What is the next thing that you would like to move to?” because my experience with the alternate product has been really good, I would switch to that.

The setup is not really complex. It was quite easy. We had to refer to a couple of things, but I come from a background where I have that kind of experience, so it was easy for me.

The pricing is okay. I believe it is competitively priced. But it is not just the price by itself, it's the price and the technical features. The features also play a big role. It has to give me the relevant output. That is more important. Price is secondary. Price will not play a very big role because if it does not deliver what I need... For example, if I were to buy a car without an engine, that's still a car, but it is of no use. I might as well buy a car that works.

They have simplified the licensing. Now there is a single license that is required. Earlier, multiple licenses were required. Single licensing is good. As a customer, I don't need to keep an inventory of multiple licenses.

Up until now, it has been a good product, so go ahead with it. It works well. We have been happy with it for the last four years.

We don't have to use cables anymore and it gives us a variety of connections. We can do video conferencing and web conferencing, so it has been great. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is its security. Cisco is very well known for security.

In terms of performance, it's really good. I have never seen it go down, at least in the office environment. Deploying it in the factory may be our next use case. A lot of noise occurs in the factory, so it could be difficult to deploy a wireless solution there. That could be a challenge.

The factory environment requires more high-density capability and there are other challenges affecting the factory environment. It's a harsh environment, but I see that Cisco's user-case allows deployment in a factory environment.

The pricing is high. It could be cheaper. Cisco is known for its high pricing.

Security and support are important factors when looking at this kind of solution. Cisco is more expensive but you have to compare the security and support you are getting. The support, in particular, is very critical, especially if you are in a conference call and the sound breaks off. You need them to get back to you quickly.

Cisco is a large company, the number-one company, and those are important factors when selecting a vendor. The other factor is the pricing, in addition to support and security.

I rate Cisco Wireless at 10 out of 10 because I have never had a problem. I am a happy customer.

Central controlling of all APs.

It has enabled the organization to become cable-free.

Training support for clients is needed.

3 years -

Cisco Wlan Controller 5508

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Excellent.

Middle.

No other solution was used.

Pretty Straightforward.

A vendor(Xiamen WisDom Net), They have 3 CCIE engineers in routing and switches but not in Wi-Fi, They quickly improvee their Wi-Fi skills and even I improved a lot.

High.

We invited 6 vendors that offered Cisco, Juniper, Aerohive brand Wi-Fi solutions to evaluate and compare products.

See my website article:

http://aweisoft.net/Knowledge/Cisco/OptimizeWiFi/OptimizeWiFi.aspx

I utilize it as a Wi-Fi solution for personal use. 

The solution is easy to use and its stable. I like its quality. 

The price could be better.  

I have been using Cisco Wireless for two or three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is certainly scalable. 

Cisco support is good.

Prior to using the solution, I used Aruba.

The installation was easy. It took around ten minutes. 

We handled the installion on our own. 

The solution does not come with a licensing fee. 

There are many users making use of the solution in Taiwan. 

The solution offers fast response time. 

I rate Cisco Wireless as an eight out of ten. 

We use it for all kinds of equipment including, laptops, mobile devices, and guest access. We are just using the basic features and just the wireless connection.

If I take it away, that would be a nightmare because we have a lot of devices working through wireless.

The capacity, security, downloading, and exporting data are all very good. It's user-friendly, but if I look at Meraki versus normal Cisco equipment, then I think that Meraki will be much more user-friendly.

The price could be better. The configuration is also complex. It would be better if there's an NEC solution. That's one of the things we really want to have. It should also be as fast as possible.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for a couple of years.

It's stable, but it's expensive.

We got in touch with technical support once, and that was good.

The initial setup is complex. We currently have a complex configuration.

It's expensive. The pricing is an obstacle.

I would advise new users not to underestimate the complexity of the configuration.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless an eight.

We primarily use the solution for wireless services. We use it for wireless LAN.

The simplicity is the solution's most valuable aspect.

It's very easy to configure the access points.

The solution is scalable.

The solution is stable.

The initial implementation is pretty straightforward.

The pricing is a bit high. It could be less expensive. If they could work to lessen the cost, it would be helpful.

The reporting of the product could be improved. When I needed to troubleshoot, I couldn't get sufficient information from the controller.

It would be useful if they could add in features like AI for easier troubleshooting.

I used this product at my previous company. It's been seven or eight years. However, I do not work there anymore.

After using it for eight years, I can vouch for its stability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable in terms of performance. 

The scalability is okay. It's more or less affected by the infrastructure design as it is based on coverage. When we need to expand coverage, we will have to just add more.

Technical support was okay in general. However, I had one negative experience doing a proof of concept with Cisco Malaysia for a Cisco ISE product. Their engineer wasn't a master of the product. It seemed the help they gave to us wasn't that knowledgeable. 

I also have experience with Aruba and Ruckus.

The initial setup wasn't overly complex or difficult. It was pretty straightforward. Back then we were using the Cisco Network as well - both wired and wireless. The configuration was quite simple.

The cost of the product is rather high. It's one of the downsides.

We're were just a customer and an end-user. I don't have a business relationship with Cisco at this time.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I'd rate it higher if it was more reasonable in terms of pricing and if the reporting was better.

If a company would like to implement this product, they must make sure the pricing doesn't bother them and that they buy enough devices in order to ensure proper coverage for their needs. 

It's cloud-based. We only work with on-premise devices and usually the prices are good for our customers. 

The license and prices are great. 

Their technical support is very good and important. 

The initial setup is basic and simple. 

I implemented myself. 

It's a bit expensive but it's professional and works properly. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. No product can be a ten out of ten and there are some security issues.